Renaissance Man
- Thread starter Xelene
- Start date
Maybe because the latter half of the phrase is "master of none" implying you are not brilliant at anything.
Our greatest minds have been polymaths (not "Jacks")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymath
Our greatest minds have been polymaths (not "Jacks")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymath
Permabanned
- Joined
- 17 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 66
Because they're not Jacks; they're geniuses. 
Leonardo da Vinci was good at everything he did.
Leonardo da Vinci was good at everything he did.
I've rarely seen a master of none, most polymaths i've encountered are master of all - or at least great at a few disparate areas.
Which of these greatest minds are supposed to be Jacks?
You are confusing terms.
Someone who is exceptionally capable across multiple disciplines/fields is not known as a "Jack of All Trades", a Polymath or Renaissance Man is not a Jack of all Trades as that implies someone is simply capable in varied fields whereas a Renaissance Man (polymath) is exceptional in varied fields.
Our greatest minds (where applicable) have not been Jack's of All Trades, they have been Masters of diverse and varied fields.
The two are unrelated to each other.
There is also the fairly obvious fact that in the past it was significantly easier to change the face of a field of science.
Its widely recognised that if you put any of these Polymaths into todays society they would not achieve anything like as much. There is much more competition in every field and we know so much about most topics that the level of work required to build on that takes a career to amass sometimes.
Learning everything there was to know about a topic 300 years ago wasn't a huge task. Now it is much more complicated and goes into much more depth.
Its widely recognised that if you put any of these Polymaths into todays society they would not achieve anything like as much. There is much more competition in every field and we know so much about most topics that the level of work required to build on that takes a career to amass sometimes.
Learning everything there was to know about a topic 300 years ago wasn't a huge task. Now it is much more complicated and goes into much more depth.
Considering the average IQ would have been 60 or something, learning everything was hardly easy, while it would have been far easier for higher classes (especially so since some things were either illegal or expensive to get) and due to the fact that there weren't as many distractions to deal with back then, focus wasn't hard to achieve.
The problem today is that frankly there isnt quite the lack of people with knowledge any more, there is very little distinction to being very good at a lot of things and it is hard to find polymaths today amongst the massive population which is rapidly being educated to a fantastic degree, something likely a lot of the previous polymaths desired.
Another issue is the vast knowledge that we have accrued about mental "differences", such that make you more logical (i.e. Aspergers) or chaotic (i.e. ADHD) to a degree, the existence of them is likely older than the hills, however being acknowledged in society makes it take on a social status, which changes that persons outlook, though this is a subject area that is too vast for this thread, moving on.
What we need to search for today are Eidetic's, it is an extremely desired trait in this information heavily society, though i imagine there are plenty more traits that are equal in measure/usefulness.
I know of no current polymath right now, which is unlikely, so i imagine the rise in intelligence and educational awareness has softened their touch.
Polymaths (in the Renaissance Man sense) were not limited by discipline, they were exceptional not only in science, but also the arts and literature. Da Vinci, Servetus, Michelangelo and Aristotle are prime examples. A polymath excelled in all forms of knowledge they attempted,
Widely accepted by who?
Whie that may be true to some extent, we still produce polymaths, so I would dispute that to some degree.
Again, I would dispute that, today it is easier and faster to learn, the grounding we have is broader, easier to attain, supplemented by hundreds of years of prior knowledge to draw upon, huge advances in technology and communication, the ability to store vast amounts of knowledge and research from thousands of sources at your fingertips and so on....many of these historical masters were not just learning prior knowledge, they were creating it. And going back to my original point, a polymath isn't just about excelling in science, it is about excelling in multiple diverse fields across the breadth of human endeavour.
Many modern polymaths are simply unrecognised as such or are not in the public eye...but they still exist, probably more so today than ever.
Last edited:
I like to consider myself a polymath in training
Many people are technically Polymaths without ever realising it. You needn't be the equivalent of Michelangelo, just be very good at several diverse things....you have a start with your art.....
The main criteria was thought to be:
So learn fencing, play the guitar, write a book and you should be set.....
because these days there are so many fields and so much knowledge to learn where as most real renaissance men likely learned from the world around them by studying nature etc
Many people are technically Polymaths without ever realising it. You needn't be the equivalent of Michelangelo, just be very good at several diverse things....you have a start with your art.....
The main criteria was thought to be:
So learn fencing, play the guitar, write a book and you should be set.....
Surely art is rather subjective?
The whole idea of art is to raise the viewers awareness of an object/subject, which usually means a picture, but scientists create pictures of life itself and engineers adapt it to work for society, id call that art, wouldn't you?
Whether you like art is indeed subjective, however things like technique, ability and insight are often thought to be universally recognisable, For example, I don't particularly like the Mona Lisa as a picture, but I recognise the mastery of the artist who painted it nonetheless.
As for the second point, you are inventing an argument of semantics...we do have recognised defined fields of knowledge, I agree that a well Engineered piece of architecture can be a work of Art and a Surgeon is an artist in his own field, but without getting bogged down in subjective notions of artistic expression, for the purposes of demarcation of diverse fields, I think it is obvious as to the difference between Art and Science.....even if the two overlap as we can find beauty in all things when we look at it subjectively. In you quoted pat I was referring to Elmarko's Painting, that should imply that Elmarko's Painting is representative of All Art, it is simply his expression of Art, and perhaps not his only one.
One other point, I wouldn't agree that Art usually means a picture....it can be anything from a Painting, to a Sculpture, to a Film, to a piece of Literature, to a construction of Architecture, to a Mathematical Formula, or just simply watching the sun rise on a spring morning. Anywhere there is a beauty in a thing or a thought, there is Art.
Last edited:
Not to nit-pick, but the average IQ would have been 100 as it is a normalised quota
It was also "easier" as science and mathematics was not as branched as it is today - it would be difficult to say that someone was a master physicist (for example) today. For example consider the sub-areas of particle physics, nanophotonics, quantum mechanics and astronomy - it's hard to be pushing the boundaries of one of these things let alone all of these things simultaneously, and then chemistry, biology, mathematics etc!
I simply used picture as it seemed to pop up to me first, there was no need for a list, i thought.
But i guess you are right about the first point.
Not to nit-pick, but the average IQ would have been 100 as it is a normalised quota
It was also "easier" as science and mathematics was not as branched as it is today - it would be difficult to say that someone was a master physicist (for example) today. For example consider the sub-areas of particle physics, nanophotonics, quantum mechanics and astronomy - it's hard to be pushing the boundaries of one of these things let alone all of these things simultaneously, and then chemistry, biology, mathematics etc!
A polymath needn't excel at everything...only those things they attempt or interest them...for example a modern polymath is Roger Penrose...who excels at Physics (not all physics, but his field of physics), Philosophy (again, not all, but his chosen field thereof), he is also a prominent author and Mathematician, another eminent example is Nathan Myhrvold, who is prominent in Physics, Computer Science, Business, Photography and is even a noted Chef.
We have plenty of polymaths today, we simply don't revere them as much as they are more common than in the past and the gap between the true polymaths and the intelligentsia is less apparent today than in the past.
Da Vinci was infamous for never finishing commissions for example...basically he got bored quickly and I suspect that is true today.
Last edited: